In Reframing Organizations (1997), Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal suggest that there are four "frames" that can be used to understand organizational structure, behavior, and leadership: the structural, the human resource, the political, and the symbolic.
The current debate on tenure within the academy has concentrated largely on Bolman and Deal's structural perspective, with obvious political and human resource ramifications. We have been asking how best to organize the staff of the academy in order to achieve its outcomes.
Those on the other side take an equally structuralist view of the tenure discussion. According to these advocates, to raise even modest questions about existing tenure systems is to strike a deliberate, evil blow to the core of the profession.
I suggest that this discussion needs to be reframed, from a focus upon institutional structures to one that concentrates upon myth and symbol. The real fuel of the tenure discussion is not generated by the rationalist arguments, on both sides. The heat, instead, comes from what tenure stands for-what we don't say, but what we believe in our different ways, that it represents about the professoriate.
Critics see in tenure an assertion that faculty members are a privileged class, with special and unique entitlements. Tenure, to an executive or line worker who has recently been laid off, or fears being laid off, or has had to manage lay-offs, is an assertion that college teachers are "better than the rest of us."
From within, the symbolism is equally rich, and not unrelated, but emotionally the diametric opposite. To faculty members, as to their critics, tenure is the emblem of a special status. But to professors, that emblem is comparable to a physician's white coat or a priest's clerical collar: it is a marking of vocation. Faculty members cast their eyes over contemporary professional society, and realize that virtually every other occupation with the same apprenticeship (lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, dentists, engineers) is far more richly rewarded in salary and, often, in social status. And yet the faculty's calling is every bit as difficult, socially valuable, and benevolent. College teachers say, "We are special: we devote ourselves to the pursuit and transmission of knowledge; we serve young people; and we spend decades schooling ourselves for this profession." Tenure is the vestment of the academic priesthood.
If we translate the tenure issue to mythic language such as this, possibilities for mutual understanding, resolution, and even reform may appear. Instead of trying to reassure faculty with legal guarantees of due process (which are necessary and important), we need other ways to celebrate the uniqueness of their calling. Interestingly, the institutions that have done well without regular tenure tend to have a strong sense of community and vigorous instruments of faculty governance (e.g., Evergreen State, Warren Wilson, Deep Springs).
From the faculty perspective, it might be argued that the highest priority should be not so much to defend current tenure codes as to make sure that the present tenure system is actually working, and that that can be demonstrated to outside observers. Often, it is not. At my current institution, for example, a faculty member whose tenure his divisional colleagues voted to revoke for professional incompetence has now stretched the appeal process for over two and a half years. No end is in sight, and the promise of civil action looms when institutional grievance processes are exhausted. He has not met a class, advised a student, or undertaken any service or research, but continues to receive a check every pay period.
Such stories undercut assertions that tenure is no sinecure: in practice, it very often is just that. If we could demonstrate that tenure was simply a guarantee of fair, efficient due process to protect academic freedom and independent expression by competent faculty members, we might silence our critics.
Moreover, it might well be conjectured that "tenure reform" is an unfocused solution to an unspecified problem. Which of the many serious challenges facing American colleges would be mitigated by reforming tenure? Would it dramatically loosen the purse strings of tightfisted state legislatures or of private philanthropists? Would it increase student enrollments?
It is possible that tenure revision could lead to some modest revisions in public perceptions of college teachers and, hence, colleges. But it would have little impact on deferred maintenance, curricular change, the challenge of instructional technology, and other problems. According to some cynics, tenure reform might produce a more genial faculty. But most of us--most of the time--would not want such a flock, anyway. George Drake, the recent president of Grinnell College, referred to the instructional staff of that fine midwestern liberal arts college as "yeasty"--an apt description of a good faculty.
I am arguing that the correct metaphor for understanding, and even resolving, the disputes about tenure is not the factory, but the cathedral. So long as opponents and defenders of tenure pretend to discuss the structures of workforce deployment in colleges, they are doomed to mutual misunderstanding. When they begin to recognize tenure as a symbol of a unique and noble lay priesthood, with a rigorous apprenticeship and a compelling investment in the future, true communication--even communion--may be possible.
Samuel Schuman is vice chancellor for academic affairs and dean at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
My Paper:
Christine Mazza
Admin 608 Leading Schools in Context
For anyone who is familiar with education, is familiar with the turbulence that runs through it every few years. Shifts in administration ultimately lead to shifts in practice. The structure in place 20 years ago, is not the same structure that was in place 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago or even today. The goal is always the same…children need to be educated and earn enough credits to graduate and take their place in the workforce as productive, educated citizens. Every generation has seen new structures, new paths that ultimately lead to the same goals. Today, 2007, once again the City of New York has placed a new structure in place. They are calling it round two of the Chancellors’ Children First initiative. First round occurred three years ago, the dismantling of district, removal of dead weight, put more funds into the principal’s hands directly, circumventing the districts, increase accountability to raise scores. The “empowerment school zone” was created which gave principals (should they had been so brave to sign up for an uncharted boat in uncharted waters) complete autonomy from the regional superintendents and sole accountability to the Chancellor and his team. They were in complete control of their funds and could decide to use ANY curriculum of their choice, to look at their population, decide what would work best and purchase it.
At the beginning of the school year, rumors ran wild. People saying “It’s coming again, another change” “We are going to Boroughs” “We are all going Empowerment” No one knew. Then in January answers started to flow in. Again another shift in procedure, policy and practice. My office, OIT, which is part of the “Teaching and Learning” division was under siege. My director needed to establish a reason for his staff (which by central standards was quite large), a reason for his department and push his ideas to the top so when the dust settled during this second round of the reorganization, we would all come out with clear, defined roles that would keep the office in tact and allow us to continue on with the work that we are doing.
Using this chart as a frame of reference http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/table15-1.html we defined our roles and the organizational frames of our division and its fit in the NYCDOE. ( My role in this process was weaved in and out where my director deemed appropriate)
Process Reoganizing: We (all regional and central Technology leaders) developed a list of different programs that were currently being implemented throughout NYC and placed all work into 5 “buckets” to begin give shape to the work we do. We collaborated both in meetings held monthly and through an online collaboration tool https://lits.wikispaces.com/
Structural Realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks and environment: Looking at the buckets, people were naturally drawn to the work they do best. The director started to look at the team as one rather then 12 that did their own thing (which under the regional reorg was exactly what we were, but starting 2008 we would be one team) People’s roles and responsibilities were tested to figure out what fit best in this picture he was painting for the Chancellor’s office.
Human Resources Maintain balance between human needs and formal role: People were uneasy. Jobs were on the line, positions were inevitably going to be cut and when the dust settled it was the hope of the director that everyone who originally reported to him, either had a job with him or in another division that made them happy. The job to satisfying human needs was a tricky. Time was ticking, people were unsure of September and tensions ran high. Maintaining a balance between definitions of positions and keeping a large staff informed enough to stick around was very hard.
Objectives:
Activities:
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/table15-1.html
MYTH, SYMBOL, AND TENURE
In Reframing Organizations (1997), Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal suggest that there are four "frames" that can be used to understand organizational structure, behavior, and leadership: the structural, the human resource, the political, and the symbolic.
The current debate on tenure within the academy has concentrated largely on Bolman and Deal's structural perspective, with obvious political and human resource ramifications. We have been asking how best to organize the staff of the academy in order to achieve its outcomes.
Those on the other side take an equally structuralist view of the tenure discussion. According to these advocates, to raise even modest questions about existing tenure systems is to strike a deliberate, evil blow to the core of the profession.
I suggest that this discussion needs to be reframed, from a focus upon institutional structures to one that concentrates upon myth and symbol. The real fuel of the tenure discussion is not generated by the rationalist arguments, on both sides. The heat, instead, comes from what tenure stands for-what we don't say, but what we believe in our different ways, that it represents about the professoriate.
Critics see in tenure an assertion that faculty members are a privileged class, with special and unique entitlements. Tenure, to an executive or line worker who has recently been laid off, or fears being laid off, or has had to manage lay-offs, is an assertion that college teachers are "better than the rest of us."
From within, the symbolism is equally rich, and not unrelated, but emotionally the diametric opposite. To faculty members, as to their critics, tenure is the emblem of a special status. But to professors, that emblem is comparable to a physician's white coat or a priest's clerical collar: it is a marking of vocation. Faculty members cast their eyes over contemporary professional society, and realize that virtually every other occupation with the same apprenticeship (lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, dentists, engineers) is far more richly rewarded in salary and, often, in social status. And yet the faculty's calling is every bit as difficult, socially valuable, and benevolent. College teachers say, "We are special: we devote ourselves to the pursuit and transmission of knowledge; we serve young people; and we spend decades schooling ourselves for this profession." Tenure is the vestment of the academic priesthood.
If we translate the tenure issue to mythic language such as this, possibilities for mutual understanding, resolution, and even reform may appear. Instead of trying to reassure faculty with legal guarantees of due process (which are necessary and important), we need other ways to celebrate the uniqueness of their calling. Interestingly, the institutions that have done well without regular tenure tend to have a strong sense of community and vigorous instruments of faculty governance (e.g., Evergreen State, Warren Wilson, Deep Springs).
From the faculty perspective, it might be argued that the highest priority should be not so much to defend current tenure codes as to make sure that the present tenure system is actually working, and that that can be demonstrated to outside observers. Often, it is not. At my current institution, for example, a faculty member whose tenure his divisional colleagues voted to revoke for professional incompetence has now stretched the appeal process for over two and a half years. No end is in sight, and the promise of civil action looms when institutional grievance processes are exhausted. He has not met a class, advised a student, or undertaken any service or research, but continues to receive a check every pay period.
Such stories undercut assertions that tenure is no sinecure: in practice, it very often is just that. If we could demonstrate that tenure was simply a guarantee of fair, efficient due process to protect academic freedom and independent expression by competent faculty members, we might silence our critics.
Moreover, it might well be conjectured that "tenure reform" is an unfocused solution to an unspecified problem. Which of the many serious challenges facing American colleges would be mitigated by reforming tenure? Would it dramatically loosen the purse strings of tightfisted state legislatures or of private philanthropists? Would it increase student enrollments?
It is possible that tenure revision could lead to some modest revisions in public perceptions of college teachers and, hence, colleges. But it would have little impact on deferred maintenance, curricular change, the challenge of instructional technology, and other problems. According to some cynics, tenure reform might produce a more genial faculty. But most of us--most of the time--would not want such a flock, anyway. George Drake, the recent president of Grinnell College, referred to the instructional staff of that fine midwestern liberal arts college as "yeasty"--an apt description of a good faculty.
I am arguing that the correct metaphor for understanding, and even resolving, the disputes about tenure is not the factory, but the cathedral. So long as opponents and defenders of tenure pretend to discuss the structures of workforce deployment in colleges, they are doomed to mutual misunderstanding. When they begin to recognize tenure as a symbol of a unique and noble lay priesthood, with a rigorous apprenticeship and a compelling investment in the future, true communication--even communion--may be possible.
-
By Samuel Schuman
Samuel Schuman is vice chancellor for academic affairs and dean at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
My Paper:
Christine Mazza
Admin 608 Leading Schools in Context
For anyone who is familiar with education, is familiar with the turbulence that runs through it every few years. Shifts in administration ultimately lead to shifts in practice. The structure in place 20 years ago, is not the same structure that was in place 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago or even today. The goal is always the same…children need to be educated and earn enough credits to graduate and take their place in the workforce as productive, educated citizens. Every generation has seen new structures, new paths that ultimately lead to the same goals. Today, 2007, once again the City of New York has placed a new structure in place. They are calling it round two of the Chancellors’ Children First initiative. First round occurred three years ago, the dismantling of district, removal of dead weight, put more funds into the principal’s hands directly, circumventing the districts, increase accountability to raise scores. The “empowerment school zone” was created which gave principals (should they had been so brave to sign up for an uncharted boat in uncharted waters) complete autonomy from the regional superintendents and sole accountability to the Chancellor and his team. They were in complete control of their funds and could decide to use ANY curriculum of their choice, to look at their population, decide what would work best and purchase it.
At the beginning of the school year, rumors ran wild. People saying “It’s coming again, another change” “We are going to Boroughs” “We are all going Empowerment” No one knew. Then in January answers started to flow in. Again another shift in procedure, policy and practice. My office, OIT, which is part of the “Teaching and Learning” division was under siege. My director needed to establish a reason for his staff (which by central standards was quite large), a reason for his department and push his ideas to the top so when the dust settled during this second round of the reorganization, we would all come out with clear, defined roles that would keep the office in tact and allow us to continue on with the work that we are doing.
Using this chart as a frame of reference http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/table15-1.html we defined our roles and the organizational frames of our division and its fit in the NYCDOE. ( My role in this process was weaved in and out where my director deemed appropriate)
Process
Reoganizing: We (all regional and central Technology leaders) developed a list of different programs that were currently being implemented throughout NYC and placed all work into 5 “buckets” to begin give shape to the work we do. We collaborated both in meetings held monthly and through an online collaboration tool https://lits.wikispaces.com/
Structural
Realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks and environment: Looking at the buckets, people were naturally drawn to the work they do best. The director started to look at the team as one rather then 12 that did their own thing (which under the regional reorg was exactly what we were, but starting 2008 we would be one team) People’s roles and responsibilities were tested to figure out what fit best in this picture he was painting for the Chancellor’s office.
Human Resources
Maintain balance between human needs and formal role: People were uneasy. Jobs were on the line, positions were inevitably going to be cut and when the dust settled it was the hope of the director that everyone who originally reported to him, either had a job with him or in another division that made them happy. The job to satisfying human needs was a tricky. Time was ticking, people were unsure of September and tensions ran high. Maintaining a balance between definitions of positions and keeping a large staff informed enough to stick around was very hard.
Political
Redistribute power and form new coalitions: The lines in the sand were drawn. Many, many conversations with the Director and the Chancellors’ office. Back and forth, back and forth. In the end, new positions were created, new titles, new roles, new responsibilities. Positions are posted https://lits.wikispaces.com/Citywide+Tech+Staff+info We were all invited to apply and interview for the various “new titles” that were created. The new coalitions were formed http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/mediarelations/PressReleases/2006-2007/20070416_sso.htm
Symbolic
Maintain image of accountability and responsiveness; negotiate new social order: The Chancellor has always maintained his position in the Children First Initiative. http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/mediarelations/SpeechesTestimonials/20070118_partnership.htm His position was to shift accountability and as seamlessly as possible create a new social order for the NYCDOE.